Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I think what now has be taken into account is as we move to unmanned MCM they become more of a target for state and grey actors in as much as no none was going to attack MCMV like a Hunt class going about its work. One it has some weapons for defence and two and more important it people on it where an unmanned drone is fair game. We have seen this with the shooting down of a Global hawk by Iran. this will mean any MCM mother ship will need a good radar and weapon capable of defending the drones or we end up with mission kill that we are hard pressed to do anything about without upping the anti

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Fassmer have alternatives and I feel the 120 variant is closer in terms of LOA. Interesting that Fassmer claim the top speed of the MPV120 is around 22knts. Significantly faster than a Bay for example.

Lots of capability for a modest outlay.
Agree, nice - however, what I believe is the gap is a lower end cheaper vessel that can be built in numbers by alternative yards such as Appledore (assuming it’s operating).

The T31 design is equipped properly is ok as a 2nd tier frigate. The real war offensive fighting ship is the T26, which just needs to be built in higher numbers.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: I believe is the gap is a lower end cheaper vessel that can be built in numbers by alternative yards such as Appledore (assuming it’s operating).
Whilst the "quantity has a quality all of its own" argument is well made, why does RN need dedicated MCM vessels in numbers if the direction of travel is towards a mothership?

70m-75m LOA class vessels are highly limited in many areas outside of some niche deployments. I am intrigued to know why you feel RN need such a vessel in numbers?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Whilst the "quantity has a quality all of its own" argument is well made, why does RN need dedicated MCM vessels in numbers if the direction of travel is towards a mothership?
I still see the original MHPC requirement, but would also expand it to include the role as a small RM Littoral platform. The 3 B1 Rivers need to be replaced, as do the 2 Echos, add on the 5 B2 Rivers and you are at a fleet of at least 10.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:The 3 B1 Rivers need to be replaced, as do the 2 Echos, add on the 5 B2 Rivers and you are at a fleet of at least 10.
Agreed but the MPV70 is significantly smaller than all of the listed vessels. The RB1’s are 80m class and the RB2 and Echo’s are in the 90m class.

To complicate things further the Echo’s have a beam of almost 17m as opposed to the Rivers 14m. IMO a beam dimension of 17m should now be seen as absolute bare minimum for next generation MCM.

However forcing the next generation of OPV’s to have a much wider beam will result in a lower top speed, reduced range and fuel economy.

The one size fits all approach isn’t without its drawbacks.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Repulse wrote:The 3 B1 Rivers need to be replaced, as do the 2 Echos, add on the 5 B2 Rivers and you are at a fleet of at least 10.
Agreed but the MPV70 is significantly smaller than all of the listed vessels. The RB1’s are 80m class and the RB2 and Echo’s are in the 90m class.

To complicate things further the Echo’s have a beam of almost 17m as opposed to the Rivers 14m. IMO a beam dimension of 17m should now be seen as absolute bare minimum for next generation MCM.

However forcing the next generation of OPV’s to have a much wider beam will result in a lower top speed, reduced range and fuel economy.

The one size fits all approach isn’t without its drawbacks.
This is why I believe a 105 x 15 meter ship is the best compromise the Khareef class is 100 by 14.6 with a top speed of 28 knots and 4500 nm we would not need it to do 28 knots 22 to 24 would be more than enough. also BAE have said they can stretch this hull to 107 or 117 meters

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

HMS Richmond. T23 ASW, but carrying Wildcat in CSG21.
It is as planned (all Merlin goes into HMS QNLZ), but interesting to see it really happening.


User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

More over the Merlin HC-4's are grouped together on Fort Vic is this a clue that the new SSS need a Hangar for up to 4 Merlin's plus spots for 2

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Old and probably posted before, but a good summary of what is going on.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... 36642/pdf/
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

J. Tattersall

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by J. Tattersall »

Tempest414 wrote:More over the Merlin HC-4's are grouped together on Fort Vic is this a clue that the new SSS need a Hangar for up to 4 Merlin's plus spots for 2
We could almost be revisiting the Ellida argument!

Another way out looking at it is perhaps the Type 32 need a big aviation component/ capacity possibly along the lines of cruisers HMSs Tiger and Blake, for those that remember them !

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

Repulse wrote:Old and probably posted before, but a good summary of what is going on.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... 36642/pdf/
Very informative, thanks. A few nuggets I found most interesting and wasn’t aware of before:

1. Paragraph 2.7 implies they’ve settled on two different missiles for FCASW: a long range, land attack missile and a supersonic anti-ship one.

2. T31 deliveries will be finished by 2028, which probably implies they’ll all be operational by 2029. I believe that’s a move up from the prior 2030 target.

3. T32 will be a modular design, like the American LCS (let’s hope with better results) and in addition to the expected MCM and ASW modules, there will be a tactical precision strike module… containerized FCASW perhaps?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

It also highlights how the Royal Marines are destined to become a more focused force, capable of SF style operations and being deployed in small units in multiple locations. I think this finally ends any aspiration of deploying 3 Command Brigade and even Commando sized forces in the future. They will still support overseas deployments of Army units but their bread and butter duties will be very different form their more conventional role.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Hopefully we will look more to the Danish or German modular systems than the one the USN has followed for the LCS. If the interpretation of the T-32 is correct it may be more a true Escort with a modular component evolved from the "Mission Bay" on the T-26. It would however be based more on the T-31 than the T-26, so less specialised ASW components, hopefully keeping costs down.

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

Something like a T31 with a full width mission bay, like in T26, possibly connected to the flight deck (not even sure if that’s possible… maybe with significant redesigning) would the trick just nicely…

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jdam »



She has already had one update and now another year out of the water for the PIP upgrade (hopefully but Dauntless has taken longer I think) and then what another year for Sea Ceptor integration at some point?

Maybe combining all of these upgrades would have kept her in the water a bit more. Not all 4 of those years were due to upgrades granted but surely we could do something to keep her available a bit more.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... platforms/

WASHINGTON — The U.K. Royal Navy wants a future fleet with its sensors and weapons disaggregated and its ships flexible enough to change missions as needed, as the service acknowledges that traditional technology superiority may not be possible in the coming decades.

Rear Adm. James Parkin, Director Develop of the Royal Navy, said the “Navy of the Next” will derive its operational advantage from a system-of-systems approach that nets together disaggregated sensors, thinkers and shooters in a way that creates more persistent effects and less vulnerability to attack.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Sounds like the smaller ships but more of them complimented by unmanned vessels spreading the capabilities of the fleet over more a multitude of platforms providing redundancy to individual capabilities and greater survivability for said capabilities. Maybe this could influence the T-32 and T-83 going forward, with them reversing the trend to bigger and more complicated individual warships.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Not likely! :lol:

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/nava ... news_promo

The RN hopes its Persistent Operational Deployment Systems (NavyPODS) concept would allow ships to stay up to date with technological changes more quickly.
During his keynote speech on 15 September during the DSEI trade show in London, Second Sea Lord VAdm Nick Hine said the RN wanted to detach capability from platforms as he shone more light on the NavyPODS concept.

Hine told DSEI delegates that the RN needed to evolve its thinking from platform-based approaches to a simpler focus, where vessels' capability is defined by modules rather than a predefined task.
The PODS concept being pursued by the RN would see vessels reconfiguring while underway, with pods capable of being delivered via autonomous aircraft or boats.

Detailing the approach, Hine said: 'Rather than design modularity in, we have chosen to design it out. Our concept is to simplify the ship utilitarian, adaptable, common, cheaper.
'Capability will be defined by the modules you add to or remove from that ship based upon the operational demand at that time, a series of modules to deliver a spectrum of systems and capabilities.'
Part of the reasoning behind moving to so-called 'podular' capabilities is a recognition that the RN cannot afford a fleet full of high-end vessels.

NavyPODS — ostensibly traditional commercial shipping containers — would give the fleet a 'plug and play capability' that is not currently seen with the fixed roles traditionally seen on naval platforms.

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

Smells of T32… modular ASW, MCM and land attack capabilities…

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

JohnM wrote:Smells of T32… modular ASW, MCM and land attack capabilities…
Which would explain the....
"Our concept is to simplify the ship utilitarian, adaptable, common, cheaper."

Sounds very much like a CODAD powered box and perhaps not dissimilar to Absalon.

If this is the direction of travel additional T26's also look to be increasingly unlikely.

Strength in depth to allow for a rate of attrition may just once again be the order of the day....and not before time.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
If this is the direction of travel additional T26's also look to be increasingly unlikely.
When have more T26s ever been likely? Once the eight T26s are done it will be time for the T45 replacement T83s

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

NavyPODS. How does this "black and flat ships" looks like?

- has a well dock to deliver MCMV drones
- plans to carry UAVs in the ISO container. Not bad.
- plans to "add" operation center in the container. Interesting, but as planned (at least for MCM drones).

Note: River B2 can carry six 20ft ISO containers (although its flight deck will be halved), and still has accommodation for 50 additional crews. Considering the large hull, I'm sure T45, T26, and T31 can also carry these containers on their deck, easily, and all of them has good additional accommodation originally planned for EMF. Not to say Bays, Albions, Waves and Tides. So, these systems will be able to be used in many assets.

However, I am not sure what differs from numerous "containered/canistered addition" projects coming around at least from 1980s. Many idea was there, none of them was realized (StanFlex is much more restricted design). Let's see how it goes.


User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Check out the latest from Naval news at DSI talking about the Cube system and the new OMT design for the Danish

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote:Check out the latest from Naval news at DSI talking about the Cube system and the new OMT design for the Danish
Also just a power point, as of now. Let's see how they go.

Post Reply